318 LEGAL. [Feb. 



before the children's interest began. Something like £200 had 

 been the average income received from these plantations, though 

 sometimes it had been as much as £500, and for some years it liad 

 been £250. If the income was carried over forty years, it would 

 amount to about £200 a year, and their lordships thought it would 

 be a just and equitable order if the income arising from the planta- 

 tions in management, and also the income arising from the invest- 

 ment of the proceeds of the windfall, were paid to Mrs. Harrison 

 during her widowhood ; that if in any year the income exceeded 

 £250, the surplus should be retained as capital by the trustees ; and 

 that if in any year the income fell below £250, the deficiency 

 should be raised out of the investment of the proceeds of sale : but 

 this was not to prejudice the trustees in having recourse to the fund 

 for the expenses of planting. Lord Justices Bowen and Fry concurred, 

 and the order of the Court below was varied accordingly. 



THE DAAGSOETER ESTATE COMPANY, LIMITED, 

 NORWAY. 



THIS case, at the instance of Mr. Alexander Mitchell, timber 

 merchant, Glasgow, and others, as shareholders of the Company, 

 against Mr. Matthew Dunnet, of Molde, Norway, for £3 000 damages 

 for false and fraudulent representation and concealment of facts, 

 for which decree was obtained, has been before the Court of Session 

 in Edinburgh. Mr. Dunnet sought to have the charge suspended, 

 denying the charges, and asserting that the estate was bought after 

 the report of a committee of inquiry had been obtained, and under 

 the advice of a Norwegian lawyer. 



Lord Adam had suspended the decree in aljsence, the threatened 

 charge and whole grounds and warrants thereof, and found the 

 complainer, Mr. Dunnet, entitled to expenses. Their lordships 

 unanimously recalled the Lord Ordinary's interlocutor, and remitted 

 the case back to him to allow parties a proof. Lord Young remarked 

 that the Lord Ordinary had dismissed the action on the ground that 

 if there was any remedy for having induced the Company to make 

 the bad purchase in question by the alleged fraudulent representa- 

 tions, the remedy was with the Company, who, if successful, would 

 obtain the means of indemnifying all the shareholders, and that 

 there was no room for individual actions at the instance of 

 individual shareholders. The action, if relevantly stated, must 

 be with the parties who loaned their money — that was to say, 

 upon whom the deceit was successfull}' practised, and the pursuer 

 here was only assignee of other parties in a similar position. 



